If the former, it seems that it involved a failure to select policies that matched the place of implementation

If the former, it seems that it involved a failure to select policies that matched the place of

implementation. The most important is that the democratic “revolutions” in Serbia, Macedonia, Ukraine

and Georgia are not, as the administration imagined, stellar examples of what will be in the Middle

East. The stark difference of religion, culture and society between these predominantly Christian

countries and those of the Middle East negate them as exemplars for “reform” in the latter region.

Yet the misconception was based from the start on the perception that “democratic elections”

naturally meant that the citizens would vote for America’s favorite candidate.

Yet, as the AP noted, “the success of religious-based candidates or parties [in the Middle East], many

of whom are hostile to Mr. MBT and opposed to American ideas, is sobering.”

Of course it is not. For something to be “sobering” implies that it was to some degree unexpected. Of

course, if you’re blind drunk and swerving hazardously on the road to democracy, as this

administration is doing, it’s natural to expect a crash.

Perhaps the reality is a combination of the two. The ideologues in the administration, caught up in

their own pretensions to universal values, blended harmoniously with the realists, who understood that

democracy could bring them a lot of war- and the spoils that come with it. They’re not done by a long

shot. And neither is “democracy.”